From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] uprobes: Kill the pointless inode/uc checks in register/unregister
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:12:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121210191232.GA32462@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121210061901.GF22164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 12/10, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2012-11-23 21:28:06]:
>
> > register/unregister verifies that inode/uc != NULL. For what?
> > This really looks like "hide the potential problem", the caller
> > should pass the valid data.
> >
>
> Agree that users should pass valid data.
> I do understand that we expect the users to be knowledge-able.
> Also users are routed thro in-kernel api that does this check.
>
> However from an api perspective, if a user passes invalid data, do we
> want the system to crash.
>
> Esp if kernel can identify that users has indeed passed wrong info. I do agree
> that users can still pass invalid data that kernel maynot be able to
> identify in most cases.
inode != NULL can't verify that it actually points to the valid inode,
NULL is only one example of invalid data.
I agree, sometimes it makes sense to protect against the stupid mistakes,
but if we want to check against NULL we should do
if (WARN_ON(!inode))
return;
Especially in uprobe_unregister(). The current code is really "hide
the possible problem" and nothing more. It is better to crash imho
than silently return.
> > register() also checks uc->next == NULL, probably to prevent the
> > double-register but the caller can do other stupid/wrong things.
>
> Users can surely do more stupid things. But this is again something that
> kernel can identify. By allowing a double-register of a consumer, thats
> already registered, we might end up allowing circular loop of consumers.
I understand. But in this case we should document that uc->next must
be cleared before uprobe_register(). Or add init_consumer().
And we should change uprobe_unregister() to clear uc->next as well.
I think that the code like this
uprobe_register(uc);
uprobe_unregister(uc);
uprobe_register(uc);
should work. Currently it doesn't because of this check.
So I still think these checks are pointless and (at least in unregister)
even harmful.
But I won't insist too much, I can drop this patch if you do not change
your mind.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-10 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-23 20:27 [PATCH 0/7] uprobes: register/unregister preparations for filtering Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 1/7] uprobes: Move __set_bit(UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP) into alloc_uprobe() Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 5:56 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 2/7] uprobes: Kill the "uprobe != NULL" check in uprobe_unregister() Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 6:00 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 3/7] uprobes: Kill the pointless inode/uc checks in register/unregister Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 6:19 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-12-10 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-12-13 10:35 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-12-13 13:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-13 14:08 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-12-13 14:12 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 4/7] uprobes: Kill uprobe_consumer->filter() Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 12:02 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 5/7] uprobes: Introduce filter_chain() Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-24 16:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 12:04 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 6/7] uprobes: _unregister() should always do register_for_each_vma(false) Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-23 20:28 ` [PATCH 7/7] uprobes: _register() should always do register_for_each_vma(true) Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-13 10:26 ` Srikar Dronamraju
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121210191232.GA32462@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).